olavk

65 ms·

631.
by olavk 11y ago
The Nazi party was certainly the winner or the election in July 1932, where it became the largest party in the parliament. In March 1933 elections it became even larger, with 44% more than twice the size of the second largest party, the SPD
632.
by olavk 11y ago
So you believe people who say they like this movie are actually lying?
633.
by olavk 11y ago
I was unclear. I meant DTD's are not an SGML language.
634.
by olavk 11y ago
Yeah, if just full-screen Java Applets had prevailed instead of web pages we would be much better off! Seriously, the html/css/js stack has its share of haphazard design, but it has shown to be much more robust and adaptable than
635.
by olavk 11y ago
Well CSS is older than XML. SGML was considered a (meta-)markup-language, i.e. a format for adding semantic info to human-readable text. It was never considered an universal data format. As an example DSSSL, the style sheet language of SGML
636.
by olavk 11y ago
Possible I guess, but there is not a shred of Evidence. Milena never claimed anything of the sort either. And Einstein did his most important work, general relativity, after their marriage had soured and they were not on speaking terms anym
637.
by olavk 11y ago
> I've found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for far longer than it's been fashionable to do so You are pretty old then, I guess?
638.
by olavk 11y ago
Slaves were freed though.
639.
by olavk 11y ago
They didn't worship science as such, but they could to some extent be said to worship numbers and mathematics, since it represented the ideal and hence the divine.
640.
by olavk 11y ago
Quite different actually. (Even if two things are both bad it does not mean they are the same thing!) For example you can censor a dead author, but you cannot threaten him. And you can punish someone for saying something without censoring t
641.
by olavk 11y ago
OK that is not really what I would call censorship. Censorship is restricting public access to some expression - not punishing the originator. Even if it might be just as bad for the freedom of speech, it is not the same thing.
642.
by olavk 11y ago
Yeah, TV and movies are kind of switching place in this regard. Once TV was safe and family friendly while movies could be provocative and daring. Now it is the opposite with TV (HBO/Netflix) pushing the boundaries with sex and violenc
643.
by olavk 11y ago
Maybe I'm missing something in this story, but it just seem like a disagreement? Two parties disagreeing about something (like if to mark some particular symbolic day or not) is not censorship.
644.
by olavk 11y ago
What does "fireworks" mean here? Actual literal censorship, or just people loudly complaining and criticising the expressed sentiment? Because that is the opposite of censorship.
645.
by olavk 11y ago
It is amazing how many in this thread who make declarations about the underlying political causes for this tragedy. As far as I know, no group have yet claimed responsibilities and very little is known about the perpetrators at this point.
646.
by olavk 11y ago
Yeah, USSR got to keep the part of Poland they invaded. But the treaty between Poland, UK and France only covered aid against a German invasion, so that treaty was honored in the end. In any case, UK and France were not strong enough to bea
647.
by olavk 11y ago
I actually fully agree with you that the quotes - and really everything in the Bible - should be understood in its social and historical context. I think the trouble arises when someone tries to take scripture out of the contexts and treat
648.
by olavk 11y ago
He worked to destroy some peoples marriages. Then some people worked to get him fired. What is the difference? Which is worse? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here, I'm genuinely interested in why you think the one thing is O
649.
by olavk 11y ago
The definitions you present uses dubious logic. For example you say Republican Rome didn't have rule of law, since they (after lasting 450 years) turned into a dictatorship. And Iceland wasn't rule of law since the ended up being
650.
by olavk 11y ago
What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Jesus was a strongly religious Jew, so it is not surprising that he considered the mosaic law God-given and eternal. Paul on the other hand wante
651.
by olavk 11y ago
Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. https://www.biblegateway.c
652.
by olavk 11y ago
Then Oliver Cromwell shows that England didn't have rule of law.
653.
by olavk 11y ago
NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus quotes you find inconvenient.
654.
by olavk 11y ago
You are not really explaining by which definition England was rule-of-law (and even invented the concept) but medieval Iceland was not. I chose medieval Iceland and republican Rome as examples because they are systems which doesn't hav
655.
by olavk 11y ago
The bottom line is that a scripture which states that homosexuals shall be killed and you are allowed to beat your slaves to death, is a bad moral compass. Of course many groups have found ways to interpret this scripture in more benign way
656.
by olavk 11y ago
So at what point in time do you believe that the English implemented rule of law fully and never went back? Honestly your argument seem quite hand-wavy. How would you precisely define rule-of-law in such a way that you can decide if a parti
657.
by olavk 11y ago
> Christianity does not explicitly regard homosexuality as sinful or detestable. What do you mean by 'Christianity' in this context? Some denominations consider homosexuality sinful and detestable and some does not. Are you goi
658.
by olavk 11y ago
> It was pretty much invented by the English. Let me guess... you are English? Seriously, the English did not invent the notion that leaders are to be held accountable to laws just as subjects. Just take the roman republic.
659.
by olavk 11y ago
Sounds like bunk! Religion has pre-historic origin, it is older than agriculture and hence older than aristocracy as a class. Pre-christian rulers did have interest in how commoners worshiped - for example the Romans (though otherwise toler
660.
by olavk 11y ago
That science needs philosophy like a hand needs a thumb.

More ›